Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   "The Democrats really embarrassed themselves in the 2004 Convention when they let a dishonest demagogue like Jimmy Carter sit next to an important standard bearer for the party like Michael Moore"   (corner.nationalreview.com) divider line 89
    More: Ironic  
•       •       •

377 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Dec 2006 at 6:41 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-12-12 08:13:08 PM  
And though the NRO piece -may- be a troll, the line about Carter and Moore hurting Kerry's campaign is essentially correct. Politics 101: The convention is where the party is supposed to present its best face to the country, and not its most polarizing features.
 
2006-12-12 08:16:38 PM  
Gulper Eel: The convention is where the party is supposed to present its best face to the country, and not its most polarizing features.

Then why do they let the candidates speak?
 
2006-12-12 08:19:05 PM  
Gulper Eel
Politics 101: The convention is where the party is supposed to present its best face to the country, and not its most polarizing features.

Where do you figure they'll hide George, come the Republican Convention, then?
 
2006-12-12 08:26:04 PM  
Post what Jimmey said that is so bad? That israel is builing an apartheid wall?
 
2006-12-12 08:42:24 PM  
Pat McCroch: Try posting something not from a right-wing blog.

PBS is a right-wing blog?!

But, since you insist on leftists, I'll oblige. Heeeeeeere's Noam Chomsky. Robert Scheer. Alexander Cockburn.

Here's the New York Times Book Review (link: www.nytimes.com/books/98/08/16/reviews/980816.16issacst.htm):

Later, after failing to lift a finger to stop the Khmer Rouge blood bath, the United States gave diplomatic support to the ousted torturers after Vietnamese invaders drove them from Phnom Penh in early 1979. (''We appreciate very much the attitude of President Carter and his principles,'' a top Khmer Rouge official, Ieng Sary, told Kamm after the invasion.) Thereafter, Washington backed Chinese and Thai strategies to support the Khmer Rouge with, among other things, substantial amounts of food and medicine diverted from international relief shipments.

Diverse enough for you?

Now don't come down the lane with that weak shiat any more.

/mutombo finger-wag
 
2006-12-12 08:50:57 PM  
Man, it's a wonder the GOP didn't try to recruit Carter after that.
 
2006-12-12 08:53:45 PM  
Republicans embarrassing us all at their convention:

www.projo.com
 
2006-12-12 08:56:17 PM  
Vet_Curm, kronicfeld: When you compare him to the last few years' worth of Republican big-shots, Bush is the less-polarizing figure. It's not like they can roll Cheney or Rumsfeld or DeLay or Santorum out there two years from now. Not unless they were trying to feed Jon Stewart his material for him, anyway.
 
2006-12-12 08:58:39 PM  
Carter speaks the bat shait truth as far as he understands.
I live in a world were reality not wishful thinking or expressed opinions rule the day.
Mien Kampf was wishful thinking too but I don't feel like following it either.
Right now there are twenty Imams or Mullahs espousing their version of Mien Kampf [ My Struggle ] in the form of Jihad [ Our Struggle] similarities intended.
Unless Carter intends for us to sleep with those who vow to kill us by denigrating every thing America has stood for in favor of failed socialist agendas then he is wrong.

Unless you really know history you are a babe and know next to nothing.
We are the sum our our knowledge and everything you learned yesterday is now History.

I'm hearing the right expounding on Winston Churchill in these 1938 ish times. I agree with the time line by BTW.
Did you know when in charge of England's air force around 1920 something Churchill ordered the gassing of Iraqi's when the same factions were doing the same bit they are doing now?
Of course aero warfare had not progressed to allow chemicals to be dropped by hand from airplanes and he was removed after a lengthy hospital stay after surgery.

No record of the Iraqi's getting gassed either.
Would he have gone on to be the great leader if he had gassed the Iraqi's?

What has one to do with the other you say?
Lesson is do you really know the person you hold in esteem.

Carter was a big disappointment at the time and didn't have a clue about economics or foreign policy.
His selection of advisers lacked skills and he was convinced he could micro manage government.
Saturday Night Live even lampooned his micro managing abilities along with his playboy interview where he said he had lusted in his heart.
You can't assume every ones sum of knowledge is the same as yours.
Is he lying ? Maybe? Maybe not intentionally.
He may be speaking the truth as he knows it.
I'm sure in black and white it will be dissected.
 
2006-12-12 09:00:51 PM  
So larry whats all the good thats happening in iraq lol.
 
2006-12-12 09:01:22 PM  
kronicfeld: Man, it's a wonder the GOP didn't try to recruit Carter after that.


No kidding. Supporting lunatics for the sole reason that they oppose communists was pretty much their raison d'etre for a while.

Carter's Cambodia policies were shameful (although it was complicated as there was actually a coalition with the former Prince who wasn't really that bad), but I wonder if those talking about it in this thread realize that Reagan kept the same policy.
 
2006-12-12 09:13:02 PM  
Well gassing isn't on the table yet!
Violence is still localized in a small area and progress continues in the rest.
I'm not happy with the more troops scenario as it makes for more targets unless they are to be used to stop insurgents and materials from crossing the borders or to train more Iraqi's.
 
2006-12-12 09:13:50 PM  
larry00: Violence is still localized in a small area and progress continues in the rest.

Heh. Sure.
 
2006-12-12 09:14:55 PM  
>>larry00

That bull.

Its been PROVEN NOW, that the ENTIRE country is at civil war.

WE failed its a quagmire. the Iraq study group has also said
 
2006-12-12 09:16:55 PM  
PatMcCroch:

Do you ever say ANYTHING but "BLAHBLAHBLARGH CON-TARDS RETHUGLICANS BLAAARGGHHH"? Go drool in the corner and let the grown-ups talk.

/I, too, am ashamed to sometimes share positions with this idiot
 
2006-12-12 09:40:44 PM  
and for those that missed it, Micheal Moore was at the RNC. (he had a press pass)
 
2006-12-12 09:42:57 PM  
PatMcCroch: The rethugs can't let Carter go.

They are inraged that he is considered one of the best human beings in American history.



Classic! The 'rethugs' and 'inraged' bits are priceless!

Have you considered writing comedy? I hear Paula Shore is looking for new material!
 
2006-12-12 09:50:09 PM  
Gulper Eel
When you compare him to the last few years' worth of Republican big-shots, Bush is the less-polarizing figure.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see, won't we?

As far as less polarizing, that would seem to be a point of view perspective.

I don't recall the Democrats in the Congressional elections of 1978 running so far away from Carter as the Republicans did in the election just completed.

I personally expect to see and hear less of Bush during the 2008 Republican convention than of Carter during the 1984 Democratic Convention.

Bush during the 2008 convention would be like Johnson during the 1968 convention.
 
2006-12-12 09:56:28 PM  
I wouldn't know! You drop the killing in Baghdad you are left with a reporter killed in Mosul during a firefight with insurgents.
Over 2,000 schools rebuilt and open and thousands of children getting a education and crops harvested , and sewers working again and power in areas that never had any but thats not important only the body count.
I don't know if that reflects on what we want in news coverage or if it's just somebodies agenda but even the dreaded Faux mostly covers Iraq the same way.
Only in segments by Ollie North does any one see anything but the violence in Baghdad!
Not everyone is dumb enough to fall for that Shait.
Sader city and two Suni neighborhoods are dictating the whole Iraq policy.
Our murder rate far exceeds per capita the rest of Iraq like about 50 times.
 
2006-12-12 10:08:15 PM  
larry00

Never heard of Anbar province or Mosul, eh?

Ya, its just one tiny area and just a few killings

Those are just foreign deaths, not Iraqis.



/that little map doesn't even include the last month and 1/2 since Oct 23, 2006, so 128 U.S. servicepeople have been killed that don't show up there

larry00: Our murder rate far exceeds per capita the rest of Iraq like about 50 times.

That is absolute lunacy and blatantly untrue.
 
2006-12-12 10:11:23 PM  
larry00
Only in segments by Ollie North does any one see anything but the violence in Baghdad!
Not everyone is dumb enough to fall for that Shait.
Sader city and two Suni neighborhoods are dictating the whole Iraq policy.
Our murder rate far exceeds per capita the rest of Iraq like about 50 times.


Yup, these guys must be in on the conspiracy too.
 
2006-12-12 10:14:43 PM  
>>larry00

LOL keep believing the garbage. Iraq is a quagmire those schools weren't destroyed before we got there and 2000 is a way off number

only about 30% of the work is getting done. we failed lol
 
2006-12-12 10:18:52 PM  
National Review scumbags trying to point out the imaginary character flaws of Democrats.

F**k you, National Review.

Bigoted xenophobic frothing-at-the-mouth child molester defenders with no sense of decency, pride, honor, or anything that makes America great. Trying to promote your sickness, your sick sense of society, and your sick sense of morality.

You belong with the rest of the criminal garbage in the White House: in prison, or hung by the neck until dead.
 
2006-12-12 10:24:58 PM  
rush22

Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
 
2006-12-12 10:25:00 PM  
Errr this isn't even the right farking thread. Funny enough, it still fits. DIAF NRO.

ah there it is: Buttf**king Clinton used wiretaps zomg the Christing hypocrisy
 
2006-12-12 10:27:21 PM  
Abagadro

rush22

Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.


I did. National Review is full of assholes either polishing Republican turds or flinging those turds at Democrats. It's shiat journalism made of, and for, pieces of shiat.
 
2006-12-12 10:43:53 PM  
This is a kind of fun thread to read through.

A bunch of trolls from either side spewing crap out at each other over History's Greatest Monster. And a few Abagadros thrown in to keep it just sane enough to read.

Really, though, who gets worked up over Jimmy Carter enough to troll a thread?

Hint: Look over there ================>

I have a feeling that's where most of the trolls are standing, no matter which side of the thread it looks like they are backing.
 
2006-12-12 10:51:42 PM  
Uh, both of those people are corrupt and have damaged our country? Right?

I guess I am drunk because I forget the time that Michael Moore was the president and spent all our money and got 3000 of our finest killed.

MM says what he believes in. So does Rush, so does Hannity, so does Ann horseface. Pull your tounge out of Rush's pimpled ass and try some reality for a change.
 
2006-12-12 11:04:11 PM  
Wow; NRO, Fox News, NRO, Fox News.

Hmm.
 
2006-12-12 11:09:59 PM  
Headlines like this happen when conservatives are left behind to wail and gnash their hapless, sorry, pathetic teeth as the nation trods on into the future without them. I will laugh as they all die in a fire.
 
2006-12-12 11:33:22 PM  
Hey I could get used to throwing Shait out to see if it will stick.
After all the libtards have been doing it for years.
And corn-fed you better re figure that post as the libs are aborting them selves out of existence in ever increasing numbers.
Last lib alive please turn out the lights.
The existing schools were rebuilt for the most part and no I don't remember the exact number but it was considerable and I did say Mosul where the reporter was killed.
Anwar is a dangerous place but nothing like it was.
Fallujah and Ramaldi are peaceful now for the most part.
 
2006-12-12 11:46:09 PM  
larry00
Anwar is a dangerous place but nothing like it was.
Fallujah and Ramaldi are peaceful now for the most part.



Here are U.S. Combat deaths by month. You can click on the graph to get the details of each one

I usually refrain from such comments, but you are a farking idiot.
 
2006-12-13 12:10:14 AM  
I just come from the later Carter-bashing thread, where I admitted that I had not heard the announcement about Carter-hunting season being open. What's up with that? Are the Repubs worried he might run again?


larry00

I live in a world were reality not wishful thinking or expressed opinions rule the day.

Can you give me a forwarding address? I'd actually like to visit that world some day.


Carter was a big disappointment at the time and didn't have a clue about economics or foreign policy...
Saturday Night Live even lampooned his micro managing abilities


Well, I for one would certainly be disappointed in ANY president that was lampooned on Saturday Night Live. They are usually so respectful of the office.
 
2006-12-13 12:23:26 AM  
Jimmy Carter!1!11!! OH NOES!

So Carter sez Israel is building an Apartheid Wall?

Well, yeah. Cause Israel practices Apartheid. Even a cursory examination of Israeli Arabs' collective second-class citizenship reveals this. We didn't need a former President to tell us that. 'Cept that this is still kinda taboo to say in the U.S., unfortunately.
 
2006-12-13 02:49:54 AM  
What the neocons and the AIPAC-Israel jockers fear so much from Carter?

Peace?
 
2006-12-13 03:17:07 AM  
larry00

What's it like fighting a useless cause?
 
2006-12-13 05:31:28 AM  
Gulpereel;Reagan helped the dismantled Khmer Rouge with something like $12 million in food aide.He also pressed for the dismantling of the Cambodian government to be inclusive of the Khmer Rouge in an interim government,and this policy didn't stop until the early 90's.The main reason was they were very bitter that the "damned" Vietnamese were the ones who dismantled the Khmer Rouge and then claimed Vietnam's actions of doing so were illegal.The CIA through the 80's funneled $20-$24 million through Thailand to the disbanded Khmer Rouge marked as "nonlethal" or "humanitarian" with the idea to free up the money the Khmer Rouge had to purchase arms on the world market with the Reagan admin. feigning ignorance.This is all VERY well documented stuff.I imagine if you punch in Khmer Rouge+Reagan or Reagan+Cambodia it will be a watershed kinda moment

/not your secretary
 
2006-12-13 06:15:14 PM  
Gulpereel

You seem to have all the dirt on Carter without digging down any further into the reason for the policies (i.e., the roots). Let me guess...you just happened to come across it on random searches? Really, dude, could you be more obvious?
 
2006-12-14 11:16:26 PM  
Gulper Eel hit this:
images.google.com

here:
images.google.com

If Jimmy Carter is the best leader that we can hope for, then we need a fundamental re-examination of our entire governmental system. The Carter administration underscored that the government, as it is now, is not interested in the interests of the peoplel: the government serves only the power of the elite, and corporate financial interests.

PatMcCrotch: Party loyalty is not a positive trait.
 
Displayed 39 of 89 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report